This
civil appeal by Special Leave is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and another challenging the legality
and correctness of the judgment and order dated August 7, 1984 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in
review representation being Misc. Petition No. 322 of 1984 in Representation
Petition No. 142 of 1978 filed by the respondent.

2. A
few facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly summarised as
under:- The respondent was appointed on 18th April, 1945 as Tehsildar in revenue department
of the erstwhile State of Hyderabed. On
re-organization of the States on 1st November, 1956, the respondent was allotted State of Andhra Pradesh.

In the
year 1957, he was promoted as Deputy Collector.

3.
While serving as the Deputy Collector, the respondent applied for the granted
leave from 11th June,
1963 to 10th June, 1968. While on leave, on 14th November, 1964, the respondent sought pre-mature
retirement. The Board of Revenue informed the respondent. that the govt.
servant in superior service governed by old pension rules had the option to
retire from service only after completion of 25 years of qualified service.
While sanctioning the last spell of extension of leave from 1st January, 1968
to 10th June, 1968, the Board of Revenue informed the respondent that he would
cease to be a government servant from 11th June, 1968 as per Rule 29 of the
Hyderabad Civil Service Rules (for short `Rules') according to which a
government servant after five years of continuous absence from duty elsewhere
than on foreign service ceases to be a government servant. Despite such
communication, the respondent did not join the service on 11th June, 1968 but sought permission on 19th June, 1968 to serve in a private company
started by him and his wife.

According
to the appellants, the respondent thus had not only violated Rule 29 of the
Rules by remaining absent for more than five years but also contravened Rules
10, 11 and 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964.

In the
meantime, the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 28th August, 1968 appointed the Secretary to the Board of Revenue as enquiry
officer under Rule 19(2)(a) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1963.

On November 24, 1970, a charge sheet came to be served
on the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply on 28th December, 1970 but did not ask for any oral
inquiry. On perusal of the reply, the Authority found that the explanation
given by the respondent was not satisfactory and, therefore, on 31st March, 1972, a show cause notice was issued to
him (respondent) indicating the proposed punishment of removal from service.
Vide order dated 23rd
September, 1977, the
respondent was removed from service. By another order dated 13th December, 1977, the period between 11th June, 1968 to 23rd September, 1977 was treated as `dies non.' It is relevant to mention
that till the order of removal from the service was made, the respondent
continued to remain absent. In 1978, the respondent filed representation
petition against the orders dated 23rd September, 1977 and 13th December, 1977 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
After hearing the parties, the A.P.Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated
June 10, 1984 dismissed the representation
petition. The respondent thereafter filed review representation Misc.

Petition
No. 322 of 1984 before the said Tribunal. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal
after hearing the review petitioner and the respondent vide its order date 7th
August, 1984 set aside the order of removal of the respondent passed on 23rd
September, 1977 though upheld the order dated 13th December, 1977 on the ground
that prior to the issue of order dated 23rd September, 1977, the Andhra Pradesh
Vigilance Commission was not consulted by the Government as required by the
then existing Rule 4(2) of A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules.

4.
From the record, it is found that the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 31st October, 1984 issued G.O.M.S. No. 1618 whereby it
annulled the orders of the Tribunal dated August 7, 1984 passed in review representation
Misc.

Petition
No. 322 of 1984. This order was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in
exercise of its powers under Article 371-D(5) of the Constitution of India.
Aggrieved by the order dated 31st October, 1984, the respondent filed writ
petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court vide its order
date 12th February, 1987 relying of Andhra Pradesh, 1987(1) APLJ 13, allowed
the writ petition and set aside the order dated 31st October, 1984 passed by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh feeling
aggrieved by the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on August 7, 1984 has filed this appeal challenging
the legality and correctness thereof.

5. The
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal after considering to Rule 2(b) of the
A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules (for short `DPT
Rules') which defines the "misconduct" and on reconsideration of Rule
4 opined that the charges levelled against the respondent relate to the
misconduct as defined under Rule 2(b) ibid and since the Government of Andhra
Pradesh under sub rule (2) of Rules 4, as it then stood, did not consult the
Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission before passing the order of removal on 23rd
September, 1977, the said order is rendered illegal. However, the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal did not disturb the order dated 13th December, 1977 as regards treating the period
between 11th June, 1968 to 23rd September, 1977 as "dies non." The only question,
therefore, that falls for our consideration is as to whether Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of removal of the
respondent passed on 23rd
September, 1977 solely
on the ground that before passing this order, the Government of Andhra Pradesh
did not consult the Vigilance Commission. In order to appreciate the rival
contentions, it is necessary to reproduce Rule 4 of DPT Rules which reads as
under:- "4.(1) In every case referred to in sub-rule (1) or (2) of rule 3,
on completion of investigation, the anti corruption department or other
departmental authority concerned shall submit a report of the case to the
Government.

(2)
The Government shall after examining such records and after consulting the
Heads of Department concerned, if necessary, decide whether the case shall be
tried in a court of law of inquired into by the Tribunal or departmental
authority. But before taking a decision, the Government shall consult the
Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission.

(3) If
the Government decide that the case shall be inquired into by the Tribunal,
they shall send the records relating thereto the Tribunal.

(4) In
any case where the Head of the Department is not consulted, he shall be
informed of the action that is being taken.

(5)
There shall be a Director of Prosecutions and as many Additional Directors of
Prosecutions as may be considered necessary to conduct enquiries on behalf of
the Government in disciplinary cases before the Tribunal and the accused
officer concerned shall be allowed to be represented by counsel. In case where
the Director of Prosecutions or any of the Additional Directors of Prosecution
cannot attend to examinations of witnesses on commission, and ad-hoc Director
of Prosecutions shall be appointed. (As per G.O.Ms. No. 109 (Ser.D) 25-2-1969."

6. Rule
2(b) of DPT Rules defines the "misconduct":- "Misconduct"
shall have the same meaning as criminal misconduct under Section 5(1) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Central Act II of 1947) and shall include
any attempt to commit any offence referred to in clause (c) or clause (d) of
that section and any "wilful contravention of the rules made under the
proviso to Article 309 of the of persons appointed services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State." ( G.O.Ms. No. 1026, G.A.

(Ser-D),
dated 16-2-1969."

7.
Admittedly, the respondent had remained absent from duty for more than five
years commencing from 10th June, 1968 till the order of removal was made on
September 23, 1977. His absence from duty, therefore, would be covered by the
definition of misconduct under Rule 2(b) of DPT Rules.

Learned
counsel for the appellants urged that Rule 4(1) and (2) of DPT Rules have no
application in the present case because no vigilance investigation was ever
directed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vigilance Commission.

Alternatively,
it was submitted that assuming that clause (2) of Rule 4 of DPT Rules applies
in the present case yet the same is not mandatory and, therefore, no
consultation by the Government with the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission
would not render the order dated 23rd September, 1977 illegal. A somewhat similar question fell for consideration
before the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P.

decision,
a penalty of reduction in rank was made without consulting the Public Service
Commission. An argument was raised that under Article 320(3)(c) of the
Constitution of India, it was obligatory to consult the Public Service
Commission before any adverse order was made against the public servant. This
Court while construing the provisions of Articles 311 and 320 (3)(c) of the
Constitution held that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) relating to the
prior consultation with the Public Service Commission are not mandatory and
that non compliance thereof does not afford cause of action to the respondent
(public servant) in a court of law. This Court observed as under:- "An
examination of the terms of Article 320 shows that the word "Shall"
appears in almost every paragraph and every clause or sub- clause of that
article. If it were held that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) are mandatory
in terms, the other clauses or sub-clauses of that article will have to be
equally held to be mandatory. If they are so held, any appointments made to the
public services of the Union or a State, without observing strictly the terms
of these sub- clauses in clauses (3) of Article 320, would adversely affect the
person so appointed to a public ser vice, without any fault on his part and
without his having any say in the matter. This result could not have been
contemplated by the makers of the Constitution. Hence, the use of the word
"shall" in a statute, though generally taken in a mandatory sense,
does not necessarily man that in every case it shall have that effect, that is
to say, that unless the words of the statute are punctiliously followed, the
proceeding, or the outcome of the proceeding, would be invalid. On the other
hand, it is not always correct to say that where the word "may" has
been used, the statute is only permissive or directly in the sense that non-
compliance with those provisions will not render the proceeding invalid."

8. The
relevant portion of clause (2) of Rule 4 of DPT Rules reads thus:- "4(2)-
...................But before taking a decision, the Government shall consult
the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission."

9. The
phraseology used in Article 320(3)(c) is similar and reads thus:- "The
Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the
case may be, shall be consulted."

10.
The word "shall" appearing in clause (2) of Rule 4 set out herein
above, therefore, in our opinion, is not mandatory and consequently non
consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission would not render the
order of removal of the respondent passed on 23rd September, 1977 illegal.

11.
Mr. H.S.Gururaja Rao, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
relied upon the Judgment of (Suppl.) S.C.R. 634 to contend that the word "shall"
in clause (2) of Rule 4 of the DPT Rules must be construed as mandatory and non
observance thereof would render the order dated 23rd September, 1977 illegal. After going through the judgment, we are
unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent. He then
relied upon another 1966(1) SCR 825. It was a case where Regulation 13 of
Jodhpur Service Regulations was not questioned. it provided for automatic
termination of service on account of over staying the leave period for more
than one moth. The question raised before the Court was whether such
termination attracts Article 311 and answer given by this Court is in the
affirmative. The facts of this reported decision are quite distinguishable and
has no application to the facts of the present case.

12.
For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated August 7, 1984 passed by the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to
costs.